Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging denial of promotion to a retired Station Officer, the Division Bench of Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ., held that the restoration applications were maintainable and accordingly allowed the same, restoring the writ petition which had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court further held that the State Public Services Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 November 2012 could not be sustained and quashed the same. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Civil Police with effect from 16 March 1980, along with all consequential promotional pay, service benefits, and corresponding retiral benefits.
Background
The petitioner had retired from service as Station Officer in 1999. Before his retirement, he had raised a grievance regarding his promotion, alleging that his juniors had been promoted. Pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court, the Director General of Police (DGP) considered his claim but rejected it by order dated 6 April 2010, referring to adverse remarks in his confidential reports and earlier punishments. The DGP’s order recorded that the petitioner had received adverse remarks for the years 1973, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987 and 1994, and had been punished with bad character roll entries on three occasions (1975, 1980 and 1987) and adverse entries on two further occasions (1995 and 1996). In sum, the order recorded that the petitioner had been punished five times and had adverse remarks noted against him seven times over the course of his career. The petitioner challenged the decision before the State Public Services Tribunal, but his claim petition was dismissed on 30 November 2012. His review petition was also dismissed on 10 June 2013.
The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court, but his writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16 February 2015. His restoration application was subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution on 11 December 2025, thereafter, which he filed the present application for recall of that order dated 11 December 2025.
Analysis and decision
The Court at the outset noted that the petitioner had been diligent in pursuing his case and, despite being more than 85 years old, and being a resident of Parasoeli Odampur, had travelled on every occasion to appear before the Court. The Court noted that his writ petition having had been dismissed for want of prosecution and his challenge to the order of the Tribunal was never heard on merit.
The Court observed that while there is no prescribed limitation period for invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, delay may weigh against exercise of such jurisdiction. However, restoration applications stand on a different footing, and under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963, delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown. The Court also took note of the language barrier and found that the petitioner was essentially seeking to pursue his grievance regarding denial of promotion.
The Court, drawing from Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, observed that Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 confers power to condone delay to enable courts to do substantial justice by deciding matters on merits and that the expression “sufficient cause” is elastic and must be applied in a rational, common-sense and pragmatic manner. The Court further noted that refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious matter being rejected at the threshold, whereas condonation would only result in the matter being decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Court, accordingly, proceeded to examine the petitioner’s case while considering the delay.
The Court noted that the DGP’s order recorded that the petitioner had been interviewed regarding his service record, departmental rules and police procedures, and that marks were awarded after a personality test, followed by preparation of a merit list. However, as the Tribunal had already set aside the petitioner’s suspension and punishment orders, the Court required the State to disclose the relevant dates and produce the marks obtained by the successful candidates as well as the petitioner. The Court noted that the selection appeared to have taken place before the Tribunal’s judgment dated 4 August 1989, with no indication that the petitioner’s performance had been kept in sealed cover.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim petition before the Tribunal had not been opposed, yet the Tribunal dismissed it relying on the DGP’s order rejecting his representation. In the review petition, the petitioner contended that the adverse entries relied upon against him had never been communicated. The Court noted that the Tribunal had erred in its review of its earlier judgment based on such adverse entries when the Department had not resisted the petitioner’s case.
“The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. The petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative.”
The Court, having found sufficient cause and relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag case, allowed the restoration applications, recalling the orders dated 11 December 2025 and 16 February 2015 and restoring the writ petition to its original number. On merits, the Court noted that although the DGP had stated that the petitioner was considered for promotion, the State produced no record of his assessment, either in sealed cover or otherwise. The Court also noted that the State’s own counsel had repeatedly sought instructions from the department to prepare a proper affidavit in response to the petitioner’s case, including through a written communication warning that failure to provide instructions could result in an adverse order being passed against the State’s interest. No instructions were ever received. This lack of engagement compounded the State’s inability to demonstrate either that the petitioner’s assessment for promotion had been properly recorded or that the adverse entries relied upon against him had in fact been communicated to him.
Coupled with the State’s failure to show that the adverse entries relied upon for denying promotion had been communicated to the petitioner, the Court found that the denial of promotion was not supported by the DGP’s assertion that the petitioner had been considered and held that “petitioner was treated unfairly”.
Also Read: Gender cannot be a ground to deny promotion where Recruitment Rules make no distinction: Tripura HC
The Court therefore, directed that the petitioner’s promotional salary and benefits be computed from 16 March 1980, till his retirement, along with corresponding retiral benefits. The petitioner was directed to communicate the website copy of the order to both respondents, with compliance to be made within 4 weeks of such communication. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
[Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 25919, decided on 4-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the respondent: Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
